Validity of initial water sampling results confirmed.

In December of last year, Ars reported on a major EPA study in Pavillion, Wyoming that concluded hydraulic fracking operations there had contaminated the groundwater aquifer. While there wasn’t a clear link to contamination detected in some shallow private water wells, EPA believed the deeper contamination was very likely related to fracking. This determination came primarily from two deep monitoring wells that EPA had installed for the investigation.

Encana, the gas exploration company that owned the natural gas wells, disagreed vehemently. They asserted that EPA had drilled monitoring wells into a zone where gas was naturally present. As for the other compounds EPA detected in the wells, which were known to be components of fluids used during fracking, Encana said these were likely introduced into the aquifer during the drilling of the monitoring wells. EPA had foreseen this objection, and went to great lengths to avoid contaminating the monitoring wells. But Encana was not satisfied.

In the end, the EPA, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Wyoming Geological Survey, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and the Wyoming Water Development Office met to discuss these objections. They decided that the EPA and USGS would carefully re-sample the deep monitoring wells to verify the results EPA had gotten previously.

The USGS released their data (carefully avoiding any interpretation or conclusions) a couple weeks ago, and the EPA’s report was made available Wednesday. Literally hundreds of samples were collected from the two deep monitoring wells (as well as several private wells that had previously been sampled) and submitted to a number of different laboratories. The analysis was extremely rigorous—testing multiple duplicate samples at separate labs with different techniques, etc.

Perhaps most importantly, for Encana’s objections, the samples were taken at multiple times during the pumping (or purging) of the well. Samples were taken early on, and then taken again (several times) later as the pumping continued. In addition, a number of geochemical properties were monitored continuously for changes during pumping, which would indicate differences between water in the well and water in the aquifer. If the contaminants were related to the materials used to install the well, you would expect to see them progressively diluted as water sitting in the well was replaced several times over with water from the aquifer.

No such effects were seen, and the results looked no different than the original samples presented in EPA’s report last December. This demonstrates a couple things: the concentrations are indeed representative of the groundwater in those locations, and the numbers they initially reported are accurate.

It’s important to note that while natural gas was once again detected in the nearby private water wells, no other contaminants were detected. So those wells may need to be vented to prevent explosive hazards in the homes, but there don’t appear to be any other health risks.

What comes next? Following a period for public comment, EPA’s report (along with the new data) will finally go to the peer-review committee that must look it over before it’s finalized. More information can be found on EPA’s project page for Pavillion.

48 Reader Comments

I don't suppose there are any plans for new fracking wells that the EPA can start testing near NOW so we can start getting a good before/after picture? Someone has probably thought of this, but I haven't heard about it.

If I can elaborate on Mr. Johnson's last paragraph, it appears that "what's next" for Encana is a world of hurt. Perhaps this explains why they "disagreed vehemently" with the EPA's now-verified results (peer-review surprises not withstanding).

The [EPA] report really starts to get interesting when it comes to the pair of deep monitoring wells that the EPA installed in 2010. All kinds of compounds had shown up in the groundwater taken from those wells, including petroleum compounds (such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and naphthalene), methane, and known fracking fluid chemicals like 2-butoxyethanol. When asked about the results from those monitoring wells, an Encana representative told Ars, "These were drilled into known gas-bearing zones. Given this, the results (high levels of methane and petroleum-related hydrocarbons) are not surprising. On the other hand, sampling of private drinking water wells found no oil and gas related compounds exceeding state or federal drinking water standards."

The EPA report, however, indicates that these compounds were present. It concludes that "the explanation best fitting the data for the deep monitoring wells is that constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have been released into the Wind River drinking water aquifer at depths above the current production zone."...[The EPA report on Pavillion] also cites the remarkable case (recounted in Gasland) of one homeowner's attempt to replace a water well that turned foul after a gas well was installed about 150 meters away. The well driller went deeper and deeper, in search of water free from any signs of petroleum. Suddenly, at a depth of 160 meters, the borehole began to rumble and natural gas burst out of the hole. It was several days before equipment was brought in to plug the wild borehole. Encana claimed that the driller had encountered a natural pocket of gas, but the EPA obtained the results of a test hole that had been drilled nearby in 1980—no gas had been detected within 300 meters of the surface.

I don't suppose there are any plans for new fracking wells that the EPA can start testing near NOW so we can start getting a good before/after picture? Someone has probably thought of this, but I haven't heard about it.

there are thousands of new wells going in all over the country. its the latest gold rush in the energy market.

Not sure if it's in that article or not, but in the talk she said there were even microscopic organisms living way down there and they mix a kind of 'poison' into the drilling mix to kill it off so it doesn't grow and clog the gas extraction lines. I never knew that before.

So if a company objects to EPA findings they go and do it all over again, more thoroughly. From what I've read, when local residents (who are being affected by contaminated water) complain to the EPA they get told to go stick their heads in a bucket (or the bureaucratese equivalent).

So - who are the voters and taxpayers in this situation? And who is the EPA representing?

They should make the fracking companies put non-toxic chemical taggants in their drilling mix.

How would they accomplish this? They can't even get the fracking companies to accept a thorough environmental study. They don't pass the laws, they only research and process infractions. The politicians apparently couldn't give a damn about ground water contamination in Wyoming.

This is going to require action. What you need is a few hundred water carriers to meet up in Wyoming, and drive to Washington for a discussion afternoon next to the largest dam they can find.

Did the fracking company find any lost radioactive rods similar to those lost in Texas by Haliburton a few weeks ago? Apparently they are radioactive enough to klll all the people who are exposed to the rod. There is no way to destroy the radioactive rod, and so far Haliburton has reported 2 of these deadly radioactive fracking rods lost.

How's the privatization of America's lands going? pretty good I take it, that way the pollution is hidden and no one really knows about it.

Since these well casings have to last for pretty much eons; how do these companies justify the practice when they can barely ensure well casing from day one???!!! And how do they keep getting approval to pump vast amounts of toxic chemicals into aquifers across the country and are still given the green light to "drill baby drill"???

Since these well casings have to last for pretty much eons; how do these companies justify the practice when they can barely ensure well casing from day one???!!! And how do they keep getting approval to pump vast amounts of toxic chemicals into aquifers across the country and are still given the green light to "drill baby drill"???

Conservative politicians who love corporations and hate government (ironically, being politicians). Ayn Rand would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level. At least that's the conservative philosophy.

"This demonstrates a couple things: the concentrations are indeed representative of the groundwater in those locations, and the numbers they initially reported are accurate."

Uh, wait...does that mean Encana was right that the results were representative of the natural groundwater or that the EPA was right that the fracking was contaminating the groundwater? This sentence made it seem like both conflicting positions were true

"This demonstrates a couple things: the concentrations are indeed representative of the groundwater in those locations, and the numbers they initially reported are accurate."

Uh, wait...does that mean Encana was right that the results were representative of the natural groundwater or that the EPA was right that the fracking was contaminating the groundwater? This sentence made it seem like both conflicting positions were true

Eactly. Everybody here seems to read the Ars article as confirmation that the fracking polluted the environment. I understand it quite the opposite way: the new EPA study showed that the fracking made no difference to the amount of natural gas found in nearby wells, and no other chemicals or material used for fracking could be found. Consequence would be: At least in this specific case, fracking does not pollute environment.

But maybe I'm missing something here due to my limited proficiency in Englich.

Just to be clear: this is just my interpretation of the article. Otherwise, I fully agree with all the posters here saying that fracking will do irreparable harm to our environment and should be stopped immediately, at least until ist has been proven not to har the environment.

"This demonstrates a couple things: the concentrations are indeed representative of the groundwater in those locations, and the numbers they initially reported are accurate."

Uh, wait...does that mean Encana was right that the results were representative of the natural groundwater or that the EPA was right that the fracking was contaminating the groundwater? This sentence made it seem like both conflicting positions were true

Eactly. Everybody here seems to read the Ars article as confirmation that the fracking polluted the environment. I understand it quite the opposite way: the new EPA study showed that the fracking made no difference to the amount of natural gas found in nearby wells, and no other chemicals or material used for fracking could be found. Consequence would be: At least in this specific case, fracking does not pollute environment.

But maybe I'm missing something here due to my limited proficiency in Englich.

Just to be clear: this is just my interpretation of the article. Otherwise, I fully agree with all the posters here saying that fracking will do irreparable harm to our environment and should be stopped immediately, at least until ist has been proven not to har the environment.

It's my understanding that the quoted statement means there *is* pollution from fracking. You seem to be confusing the waterbed samples (deep aquifer) and the surface well samples.

Surface wells had no indication of being contaminated by fracking fluid, although they contained natural gas.

But deep water samples were identical to the ones taken earlier by the EPA, and given the new testing methods (taking samples at different times) they determined that the contaminants detected really are in the aquifer (their presence and concentration are constant) and are not introduced by the sample well drilling (in which case you'd see larger concentrations at first, and diminishing concentrations as the groundwater diluted them).

[The EPA report on Pavillion] also cites the remarkable case (recounted in Gasland) of one homeowner's attempt to replace a water well that turned foul after a gas well was installed about 150 meters away. The well driller went deeper and deeper, in search of water free from any signs of petroleum. Suddenly, at a depth of 160 meters, the borehole began to rumble and natural gas burst out of the hole. It was several days before equipment was brought in to plug the wild borehole. Encana claimed that the driller had encountered a natural pocket of gas, but the EPA obtained the results of a test hole that had been drilled nearby in 1980—no gas had been detected within 300 meters of the surface.

Not sure if it's in that article or not, but in the talk she said there were even microscopic organisms living way down there and they mix a kind of 'poison' into the drilling mix to kill it off so it doesn't grow and clog the gas extraction lines. I never knew that before.

I've had some experience with drilling mud (the fluid they use to lubricate the drill bit) and in my area at least, they add a biocide, THPS. The purpose was to kill off bacteria (to preserve the drill mud I think) but at the concentrations used it was pretty safe for humans. It's used in water treatment for household water supplies. But we realised it was too nasty to pump into waterways, so that doesn't happen. It only has a half life of 1 or 2 weeks though. After that...Everything else in drilling mud is pretty safe btw.

Since these well casings have to last for pretty much eons; how do these companies justify the practice when they can barely ensure well casing from day one???!!! And how do they keep getting approval to pump vast amounts of toxic chemicals into aquifers across the country and are still given the green light to "drill baby drill"???

Conservative politicians who love corporations and hate government (ironically, being politicians). Ayn Rand would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level. At least that's the conservative philosophy.

No Ayn Rand would support a strong system of property rights that would allow someone who had their water poisoned sue the shit out of those responsible.

She also wouldn't allow eminent domain laws that allow companies to simply drill with no input of the property owners to begin with.

With the amount questions surrounding fracking and the high likelihood that it contaminates soil and groundwater, why are we we still approving this? Maybe we should halt development of new wells until a comprehensive and definitive study has been conducted. If you look at superficial evidence around the country everywhere that fracking has taken hold has high incidences of contamination. I know...correlation/causation. As they once told me in a specialized training course I attended, seeing the same person three times or more separated by both time and distance is no coincidence.

Thanks for that! I agree with you. Many people are just plain ignorant on what Libertarianism is and don't bother to educate themselves. If they would, they'd probably realise that what is dear to them is also dear Libertarianism, instead of making sweeping false statements and assumptions

If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level. At least that's the conservative philosophy.

Which is true, in theory. You know, economic theory which assumes "perfect knowledge". Which is why in practice it is vitally important for these companies to do everything they can to prevent anyone from knowing that they have polluted, fighting attempts to discover if they have polluted, and attempt to undermine any actual discovery of pollution.

AdamM wrote:

No Ayn Rand would support a strong system of property rights that would allow someone who had their water poisoned sue the shit out of those responsible.

They already have that right, and this investigation will only help them (part of why the frackers are fighting so strenuously against it).

But with no EPA with both authority and finances to conduct the investigation, how are these people to figure out that their water was poisoned by this other company? They'll just do what they did originally: Claim the well was poisoned by natural sources.

The problem with property rights as the only rights is that your rights are now proportional to your monetary resources. Rand new this full well.

Quote:

Eactly. Everybody here seems to read the Ars article as confirmation that the fracking polluted the environment. I understand it quite the opposite way: the new EPA study showed that the fracking made no difference to the amount of natural gas found in nearby wells, and no other chemicals or material used for fracking could be found.

They found fracking chemicals in the aquifer. It's the acquifer that has been contaminated. That's vastly more significant than a few wells not having been contaminated by it yet. The lack of natural gas at the time of drilling pre-fracking wells also suggests that the natural gas contamination is from fracking, and is simply preceding the contamination by fracking chemicals. That last part is speculation on my part, but the rest was right in the article.

Since these well casings have to last for pretty much eons; how do these companies justify the practice when they can barely ensure well casing from day one???!!! And how do they keep getting approval to pump vast amounts of toxic chemicals into aquifers across the country and are still given the green light to "drill baby drill"???

Conservative politicians who love corporations and hate government (ironically, being politicians). Ayn Rand would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level. At least that's the conservative philosophy.

Straw man Fail. Ayn Rand- "If a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved—as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc. But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem."

With all due respect to both the EPA and this company, fracking CAN cause contamination of groundwater supplies. HOWEVER, what they don't tell you is that old fashioned oil drilling can do so as well and has a history of doing so.

So, it's a choice of the very MINOR and fixable harm here (easily fixed by delivering clean water on a weekly basis to these families) or the major harm from not drilling for gas/oil.

With all due respect to both the EPA and this company, fracking CAN cause contamination of groundwater supplies. HOWEVER, what they don't tell you is that old fashioned oil drilling can do so as well and has a history of doing so.

So, it's a choice of the very MINOR and fixable harm here (easily fixed by delivering clean water on a weekly basis to these families) or the major harm from not drilling for gas/oil.

This is nowhere close to a realistic appraisal of the situation. Water is used for more than drinking. Irrigation, livestock, manufacturing, processing food, all if has to come from somewhere. Contaminating a huge underground aquifer is a problem for the entire region and exacerbates already heightening tensions over access to fresh water.

Conservative politicians who love corporations and hate government (ironically, being politicians). Ayn Rand would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level. At least that's the conservative philosophy.

No Ayn Rand would support a strong system of property rights that would allow someone who had their water poisoned sue the shit out of those responsible.

She also wouldn't allow eminent domain laws that allow companies to simply drill with no input of the property owners to begin with.

It seems to me that there is a very easy legislative solution to all of this. Institute humongous fines for any proven aquifer contamination from fracking. It would provide a huge incentive for gas producers to be extremely careful, and the best part is that they can't come up with a sensible objection because they claim that such contamination can't happen, so what can they possibly be worried about?

It seems to me that there is a very easy legislative solution to all of this. Institute humongous fines for any proven aquifer contamination from fracking. It would provide a huge incentive for gas producers to be extremely careful, and the best part is that they can't come up with a sensible objection because they claim that such contamination can't happen, so what can they possibly be worried about?

Conservative politicians who love corporations and hate government (ironically, being politicians). Ayn Rand would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level. At least that's the conservative philosophy.

No Ayn Rand would support a strong system of property rights that would allow someone who had their water poisoned sue the shit out of those responsible.

She also wouldn't allow eminent domain laws that allow companies to simply drill with no input of the property owners to begin with.

No, Ayn Rand allows property rights only to those who have enough wealth to defend them. Huge difference.

Getting rid of eminent domain would also have a similar effect of preventing this from happening in the first place. If I was worried about potential damage to my property for example I wouldn't allow them to drill on the property.

This is a major issue in fracking. Govt's and companies exercising eminent domain to drill.

Aha! Now I understand why gas exploration companies like Encana are describing their drilling mud 'recipe' as proprietary--they don't have to declare the diesel content which gets them an exemption from the 'Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974'.

Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Edward Markey (D-MA), and Diana DeGette (D-CO) sent a letter to the EPA in January 2011, which revealed that diesel use had not ceased. The letter stated, "Between 2005 and 2009, oil and gas service companies injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states." Most of that was done by the same 3 companies that signed the Memorandum of Agreement with the EPA in 2004.

Industry officials said that, while it was true that the EPA was given regulatory authority over diesel use, there were no specific rules in place requiring the companies to report it. And, in fact, they tend not to report anything about what's being injected; when asked, they have largely refused to answer on the grounds that their mixtures are proprietary. The development of an ideal fracking fluid is an expensive process, they argue, and they shouldn't be forced to disclose their ingredients.

Aha! Now I understand why gas exploration companies like Encana are describing their drilling mud 'recipe' as proprietary--they don't have to declare the diesel content which gets them an exemption from the 'Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974'.

Well, it's the compounds and not the "recipes" that can be deemed proprietary. So in places with reporting requirements (such as Wyoming), they would have to disclose that they were using diesel... which they wouldn't use for the reason you mention.

There are real engineering problems in the fracking process, so when a company develops a solution, they aren't itching to share it with other companies. They consider those chemicals to be trade secrets.

Edit: I'm talking about the way things are now. Before there was so much regulatory scrutiny things were a little looser.

Aha! Now I understand why gas exploration companies like Encana are describing their drilling mud 'recipe' as proprietary--they don't have to declare the diesel content which gets them an exemption from the 'Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974'.

Well, it's the compounds and not the "recipes" that can be deemed proprietary. So in places with reporting requirements (such as Wyoming), they would have to disclose that they were using diesel... which they wouldn't use for the reason you mention.

Thank you for correcting me. That seemed too obvious a dodge. Yet generally, the amount of dodges that actually work in US industry and politics keep me paying attention and trying to learn.

Conservative politicians who love corporations and hate government (ironically, being politicians). Ayn Rand would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level. At least that's the conservative philosophy.

No Ayn Rand would support a strong system of property rights that would allow someone who had their water poisoned sue the shit out of those responsible.

She also wouldn't allow eminent domain laws that allow companies to simply drill with no input of the property owners to begin with.

I don't know or care what Ayn Rand would say. She's been dead for 30 years; which is about how long it's been since I've read any of her works (with the exception of Atlas Shrugged a few years ago).

However, her followers -- whom for the sake of argument I'll call Ayn Randians -- "would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level." The claim that Ayn Randians "would support a strong system of property rights" -- at least for individuals -- "that would allow someone who had their water poisoned sue the shit out of those responsible" is pure bunk.

These are also the same people who propose "tort reform": making it harder for individuals to sue corporations (but not the other way around). See the web site OverLawyered.com , or any John Stossel special on the subject.

To get a credit card, a consumer generally must sign a detailed agreement. In the fine print, almost always, is an arbitration clause that says that if consumers want to dispute fees, they must do so through arbitration, not in court.

A 1996 federal law allowed consumers to take their disputes to court. But in its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said arbitration clauses in those agreements trump that law.-----------Your Supreme Court at work protecting consumers the way the usually do. Which is, not.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011Supreme Court Arbitration Ruling: Courts for the Wealthy and Wall StreetToday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, invalidating California's protections against unfair provisions in contracts effectively eliminates the right of consumers to join together to fight powerful corporations in court and will lead to enormous abuses of consumers by corporations, Consumer Watchdog, a California non-profit consumer advocacy organization, said today.----------------You can read the opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion by following this link to SCOTUSBLOG.

Here's what happened and why it matters. The Concepcions were entitled to "free" cell phones under their contract. Then AT&T charged them thirty bucks for "sales tax." They joined a class action with others who got shafted the same way. Everybody's claim was too small to litigate alone, but together they had something worth a lawyer's time....Why does this matter? I expect to see such arbitration clauses and class action waivers in every single contract we get in our hands, from now on. The Supreme Court just gave corporate America a way to slam the door to the courthouse in our faces. No lawyer will litigate a thirty dollar case against a giant corporation. Now corporations can strip us of our class action rights just by inserting a term in a non-negotiable adhesion contract.

The Ayn Randians claim these rulings are good for the consumer, because it would allow corporations like AT&T to pass the cost-savings onto customers. Has anyone seen that happen, yet? Have legions of no-longer-needed corporate lawyers been laid off, now that big corporations don't have to worry about costly litigation from consumers?

where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people's liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty....As private corporations take over more functions of government, this position could lead to gradual elimination of constitutional liberties.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009SSRN-Terms of Use by Mark Lemley"Ten years ago, courts required affirmative evidence of agreement to form a contract. No court had enforced a shrinkwrap license, much less treated a unilateral statement of preferences as a binding agreement. Today, by contrast, it seems widely (though not universally) accepted that if you write a document and call it a contract, courts will enforce it as a contract even if no one agrees to it."-----New law review article that talks about the increasing use of standardized adhesion "contracts."

no matter how much incomprehensible fine-print such documents contain.

Quote:

Thursday, December 22, 2011The Fine Print SocietyAs I go over all the bills and statements and announcements and changes to this or that plan or arrangement or contract that have flooded into my mailbox recently, it occurs to me that this is a form of concerted action. Corporate managers have collectively determined to overwhelm us with fine print. We can't possibly read all this crap, much less meditate like some 18th century aristocrat on the implications of the content. Yet we can't do so much as download an update to Adobe Acrobat without "signing" a contract. We are conclusively presumed to have read, understood, and agreed to every lawyer-drafted word, and yet everybody knows that none of us reads this. Not even Ron Paul -- so don't start with me. And the more of these contracts we get, the less likely it is that we will read any of them. So corporations have an incentive to send more of them and make them longer and more verbose. This is a collective decision on their part, and it is working, and they know it.

Nearly all of this stuff is enforceable...and it makes citizens relatively powerless. The private logic of contract law structures the relationship as individual consumer vs. big corporation with government as the enforcer of the contract, instead of citizens vs. powerful private organizations, with government as policy maker holding jurisdiction over the relationship.

The law calls these boilerplate documents "contracts of adhesion," but the days are long past when judges were willing to throw them out because they were drafted by one party and imposed on the other, there was gross inequality of bargaining power, and there was no real assent to the terms. Now they are deemed essential to the free flow of modern commerce.

The two most popular fiction authors cited by people who call themselves "libertarians" are Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand. Yet Heinlein and Rand had very different views on an individual's role in and moral obligations to the larger society they live in. Unfortunately, the Rand wing -- which celebrates sociopathy as a virtue -- is the the dominant view in "libertarian" movements today.

Capitalism may be great in theory, but Ayn Randians think that people aren't good enough for it. That's why they no longer celebrate the individual and individual liberty, but instead worship collectivist entities known as corporations; which are creations of the government anyway.

Conservative politicians who love corporations and hate government (ironically, being politicians). Ayn Rand would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level. At least that's the conservative philosophy.

No Ayn Rand would support a strong system of property rights that would allow someone who had their water poisoned sue the shit out of those responsible.

She also wouldn't allow eminent domain laws that allow companies to simply drill with no input of the property owners to begin with.

I don't know or care what Ayn Rand would say. She's been dead for 30 years; which is about how long it's been since I've read any of her works (with the exception of Atlas Shrugged a few years ago).

However, her followers -- whom for the sake of argument I'll call Ayn Randians -- "would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level." The claim that Ayn Randians "would support a strong system of property rights" -- at least for individuals -- "that would allow someone who had their water poisoned sue the shit out of those responsible" is pure bunk.

These are also the same people who propose "tort reform": making it harder for individuals to sue corporations (but not the other way around). See the web site OverLawyered.com , or any John Stossel special on the subject.

To get a credit card, a consumer generally must sign a detailed agreement. In the fine print, almost always, is an arbitration clause that says that if consumers want to dispute fees, they must do so through arbitration, not in court.

A 1996 federal law allowed consumers to take their disputes to court. But in its ruling Tuesday, the Supreme Court said arbitration clauses in those agreements trump that law.-----------Your Supreme Court at work protecting consumers the way the usually do. Which is, not.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011Supreme Court Arbitration Ruling: Courts for the Wealthy and Wall StreetToday's U.S. Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, invalidating California's protections against unfair provisions in contracts effectively eliminates the right of consumers to join together to fight powerful corporations in court and will lead to enormous abuses of consumers by corporations, Consumer Watchdog, a California non-profit consumer advocacy organization, said today.----------------You can read the opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion by following this link to SCOTUSBLOG.

Here's what happened and why it matters. The Concepcions were entitled to "free" cell phones under their contract. Then AT&T charged them thirty bucks for "sales tax." They joined a class action with others who got shafted the same way. Everybody's claim was too small to litigate alone, but together they had something worth a lawyer's time....Why does this matter? I expect to see such arbitration clauses and class action waivers in every single contract we get in our hands, from now on. The Supreme Court just gave corporate America a way to slam the door to the courthouse in our faces. No lawyer will litigate a thirty dollar case against a giant corporation. Now corporations can strip us of our class action rights just by inserting a term in a non-negotiable adhesion contract.

The Ayn Randians claim these rulings are good for the consumer, because it would allow corporations like AT&T to pass the cost-savings onto customers. Has anyone seen that happen, yet? Have legions of no-longer-needed corporate lawyers been laid off, now that big corporations don't have to worry about costly litigation from consumers?

where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people's liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty....As private corporations take over more functions of government, this position could lead to gradual elimination of constitutional liberties.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009SSRN-Terms of Use by Mark Lemley"Ten years ago, courts required affirmative evidence of agreement to form a contract. No court had enforced a shrinkwrap license, much less treated a unilateral statement of preferences as a binding agreement. Today, by contrast, it seems widely (though not universally) accepted that if you write a document and call it a contract, courts will enforce it as a contract even if no one agrees to it."-----New law review article that talks about the increasing use of standardized adhesion "contracts."

no matter how much incomprehensible fine-print such documents contain.

Quote:

Thursday, December 22, 2011The Fine Print SocietyAs I go over all the bills and statements and announcements and changes to this or that plan or arrangement or contract that have flooded into my mailbox recently, it occurs to me that this is a form of concerted action. Corporate managers have collectively determined to overwhelm us with fine print. We can't possibly read all this crap, much less meditate like some 18th century aristocrat on the implications of the content. Yet we can't do so much as download an update to Adobe Acrobat without "signing" a contract. We are conclusively presumed to have read, understood, and agreed to every lawyer-drafted word, and yet everybody knows that none of us reads this. Not even Ron Paul -- so don't start with me. And the more of these contracts we get, the less likely it is that we will read any of them. So corporations have an incentive to send more of them and make them longer and more verbose. This is a collective decision on their part, and it is working, and they know it.

Nearly all of this stuff is enforceable...and it makes citizens relatively powerless. The private logic of contract law structures the relationship as individual consumer vs. big corporation with government as the enforcer of the contract, instead of citizens vs. powerful private organizations, with government as policy maker holding jurisdiction over the relationship.

The law calls these boilerplate documents "contracts of adhesion," but the days are long past when judges were willing to throw them out because they were drafted by one party and imposed on the other, there was gross inequality of bargaining power, and there was no real assent to the terms. Now they are deemed essential to the free flow of modern commerce.

The two most popular fiction authors cited by people who call themselves "libertarians" are Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand. Yet Heinlein and Rand had very different views on an individual's role in and moral obligations to the larger society they live in. Unfortunately, the Rand wing -- which celebrates sociopathy as a virtue -- is the the dominant view in "libertarian" movements today.

Capitalism may be great in theory, but Ayn Randians think that people aren't good enough for it. That's why they no longer celebrate the individual and individual liberty, but instead worship collectivist entities known as corporations; which are creations of the government anyway.

So the first two links you give me about tort reform you expect me to find your argument for you. I'm sorry that's not how it works.

The rest of your post seems to be a combination of incoherent rambling that makes no actual connection to what Libertarians actually believe. Essentially boiling down to this random guy said this on the internet and then proceeding to assume that he's Libertarian or following Libertarian principles.

If you must know why Libertarians believe in tort reform is because the current system allows virtually limitless compensation regardless of what actual damages are. If you get hit by a FedEx truck you don't need 20 million dollars on top of all your future medical expenses covered.

AdamM, you are still a contentless poster who posts nonsense. That poster did not ramble incoherently nor did he do any of the things you accuse him of. However, in your response to him, you are the one who goes off on a ramble to include hyperbolic bullshit like your retarded "example" of a 20 million FedEx truck accident. Your pathetic attempt to ignore everything he said and boil it down to some strawman idiocy is simply expected from you.

For example of your bad posting:

AdamM wrote:

dehildum wrote:

AdamM wrote:

whquaint wrote:

Conservative politicians who love corporations and hate government (ironically, being politicians). Ayn Rand would say it's OK for frackers to poison water and for people to get sick or die from it. That's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. If we choose not to buy natural gas from those drillers who kill more innocents, then the number of innocent dead will be kept to a low, manageable level. At least that's the conservative philosophy.

No Ayn Rand would support a strong system of property rights that would allow someone who had their water poisoned sue the shit out of those responsible.

She also wouldn't allow eminent domain laws that allow companies to simply drill with no input of the property owners to begin with.

No, Ayn Rand allows property rights only to those who have enough wealth to defend them. Huge difference.

Getting rid of eminent domain would also have a similar effect of preventing this from happening in the first place. If I was worried about potential damage to my property for example I wouldn't allow them to drill on the property.

This is a major issue in fracking. Govt's and companies exercising eminent domain to drill.

Yes, let me delude myself into accepting your argument in spite of the fact the the aquifer contamination would not be changed by not letting drilling go under my property. Yes, let me wallow in the rightwing trend of simplifying things into basic analogies and pretend "the potential damage to my property" is easily thwarted.

Your posting style has changed as you've adopted the voices of others on the forums in an attempt to sound more believable, but your actual content has not.